The DOBlog

Oh good grief, Hendrix is probably spinning in his grave…

Simon over at Tuppenceworth has announced he’s been invited to take part in Leviathan this Thursday. This is a nice ‘attaboy’ for the gang at Tuppenceworth from David McWilliams et al. Or else it is a trap given the number of journos who’ll be in the room.

Just in case it is a trap, I thought I’d trundle out the Journo Code of Practice - the Code of Conduct of the NUJ - for Simon to recite in the manner of Indiana Jones in “Indy and James Bond save the world“ or whatever that movie was called.

The full code of conduct can be found HERE. For the purposes of this post, I’ll only focus on the salient points…

From the Code of Conduct:

2.) A journalist shall at all times defend the principle of the freedom of the press and other media in relation to the collection of information and the expression of comment and criticism. He/she shall strive to eliminate distortion, news suppression and censorship.

The reaction of some journalists to the Paper Round (ie ‘whatwouldbloggersknow’) is contrary to the spirit if not the letter of this section of the NUJ code of conduct. The Bloggers in the Paper Round were operating in another medium (not print or traditional broadcast) but they were open about how they collected their information and presented fact-based criticisms based on what they found, as well as inviting comment and a right to reply. Comments on the professionalism of bloggers vs that of professional journalists missed the point entirely - a better response more in keeping with the Code of Conduct might have been to get involved, help refine the methodology and publicise the process.

The fact that much of what the Paper Round found given the reliance of some newspapers on advertorial or reguritated press releases could viewed as “distortion” or “news suppression” is worthy of mention. However, point number 9 of the Code of Conduct smacks one more blatantly between the eyes, given the prevalance of advertorial:

9.) A journalist shall not lend himself/herself to the distortion or suppression of the truth because of advertising or other considerations.

Given the findings of the Paper Round in relation to Opinion pieces masquerading as ‘real news’, imagine my surprise when I found the following in the NUJ Code of Conduct:

3.) A journalist shall strive to ensure that the information he/she disseminates is fair and accurate, avoid the expression of comment and conjecture as established fact and falsification by distortion, selection or misrepresentation.

Based on my reading of the Code of Conduct (and I am just an ignorant blogger), the Tuppenceworth Paper Round raise some interesting questions about the state of Irish journalism and print media in particular. I am heartened that it would seem that the Tuppenceworth approach is actually in alignment with the spirit of the NUJ code of conduct in that they published facts and provided a right of reply.

Those in print media who interpreted the Paper Round as an attack on journalists by bloggers missed the point. Those who attacked bloggers, or the paper round, in print may have acted in breach of their own code of conduct.

More worryingly for me is the question of, if journalists and print media aren’t producing a ‘product’ for the public (the customer) or one that conforms to their own Union’s code of conduct just who is the piper calling the tune?

Perhaps in 2007 the NUJ might collaborate with Tupp’worth to devise a more structured methodology for measuring standards in Irish journalism and the quality of what is actually printed in Irish print media against both the expectation of the consumer (Seamus Q Newspaperreader) and the NUJ Code of Conduct.

In the meantime, I hope that Simon over at Tupp’worth makes use of the Code of Conduct if he is ambushed. 

And as for the DOB-log… from January I’ll be adopting the NUJ Code of Conduct for all posts and comments on this blog. If it’s good enough for the journos, it’s good enough for a humble blogger like me.

OK. In an attempt to make this interesting to the kids, I’m ripping off Jimi Hendrix lyrics.

The Sunday Business Post reported over the weekend that up to 170,000 people may have been taken of the Electoral Register in error. Apparently politicians of all hues are trading war stories of bungled clean ups on the electoral register. Apparently, amongst other things, entire housing estates have been taken off the register and dead people have resurrected and re-registered to vote. The Minister in question, Dick Roche, has even had to acknowledge that he knows of an incident of a disappearing housing estate in Wicklow (wouldn’t it be ironic if it was up on Turlough Hill muses the author, mixing his Irish geography).

The Fianna Faíl TD for Meath, Johnny Brady, has commented that:

• huge numbers of elderly voters have been removed from the Register in his area
• no letters were left to inform people they were being taken off the Register (or at least people don’t recall getting such a letter).

According to Mr Brady “Some of the field officers who called to houses decided that if they were not at home, they were taken off”. This suggests a degree of inconsitency in the approaches between local authorities… in my earlier post on when the people came knocking I pointed out that they hadn’t spoken to me, but as of today I’m still on the Register. Therefore it would seem that different rules are being applied in Meath and Wexford.

Divergences in work practices in maintaining the Register is one of the contributing root causes to the whole original mess. Anecdotes of Local Authorities using the Obituraries in the local and national papers to identify dead people were mentioned in dispatches not so long ago.

And the treatment of the dead is clearly one of the key root causes for the original shambles… with 30% of Waterford’s voters being members of the daisy pushing brigade. Of course, this discrepancy is matched by the inconsistency between the numbers on the register now and the population as measured by the Census.

Good grief. What a mess.

Way back in the summer I wrote that the proposal to rebuild the register by going door to door would not address the actual deficiencies in the register. The key approach should have been to tackle the root causes - such as wildly varying work practices in different local authority areas and then to push out cleansing of the register. This should have been done in a clear and transparent manner.

However, at this point it is important to bear in mind that often the answer you get to a problem isn’t necessarily the answer you want. The Opposition parties seem to have had an expectation that there would be no collateral damage in the clean up of the register. A cliche involving eggs, omlettes and breakage springs to mind. Rather than engage in debate based on anecdote the Opposition parties should try to ’speak with data’ and to identify clear examples of where people have been taken off the register in error and get evidence of what process or inaction on the part of the Minister or Local Authorities lead to the error.

For example, Gay (Gabriel) Mitchell (Fine Gael TD) reported his personal experience where he wrote to the Local Authority officers responsible for the Register to tell them that there were two people resident at his address with the same name (his son is also called Gabriel). However only one Gabriel Mitchell was left on the Register. Why? Did Deputy Mitchell forget to include the respective dates of birth? Did his letter fall through the cracks?

Dick Roche attempted to clean the register by running en masse a broken process. Throwing people at it to perform door to door checks did not address key root causes (like the fact that you can’t change your name on the Electoral Registration form - it only allows for changes of address). When you throw into the mix that the door to door checkers:

1. Don’t hang around long enough to talk to people (in my personal experience)
2. Call during the day when people are at work (might that explain why entire estates in the commuter belt of Dublin have disappeared off the Register?)
3. Seem to have an inconsistent practice as to how to deal with people who don’t answer the door

then this whole process is a phenomonal white elephant that may have served to make a bad situation slightly worse.

However - with regard to people who have been taken off the Register in error… there is a question of personal responsibilty here. If they wish to be registered to vote then they should check the register at their local libraries or Garda stations or online (if they are in the 50.7% of people who have internet access) and get themselves registered.

If you are not in you can’t win. If you’re not on the register you can’t complain about the government you get. And by my reckoning that’s what we have at the moment.